People v. Selnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Selnik

194 A.D.2d 472, 599 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6765

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 24, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered April 29, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The plea allocution herein was proper and established that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Where, as here, in a potential insanity case, there is nothing in the record or in defendant’s assertions at the plea proceeding to indicate that he was legally insane at the time of the crime, the court is under no obligation to inquire whether defendant was aware of the possible defense of mental disease or defect (People v Kubik, 186 AD2d 271, lv denied 80 NY2d 1027). Furthermore, defendant failed to preserve this challenge, as he never moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10 (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Concur—Wallach, J. P.; Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Juanita Bing Newton, J.), rendered April 29, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his guilty plea, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 1 to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

The plea allocution herein was proper and established that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Where, as here, in a potential insanity case, there is nothing in the record or in defendant’s assertions at the plea proceeding to indicate that he was legally insane at the time of the crime, the court is under no obligation to inquire whether defendant was aware of the possible defense of mental disease or defect (People v Kubik, 186 AD2d 271, lv denied 80 NY2d 1027). Furthermore, defendant failed to preserve this challenge, as he never moved to withdraw the plea before sentencing under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10 (People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Concur—Wallach, J. P.; Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

People v. Selnik, 194 A.D.2d 472, 599 N.Y.S.2d 281, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

194 A.D.2d 472 (People v. Selnik) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related